Ambassador Murdered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254 Killed over a low budget movie, really? 9/11 celebration? This really shines the hard light of day on our ongoing engagement with the Islamic world. Answers, I have none.
I want to be a live and let live kind of guy when it comes to the Muslims, but I don't think they all feel the same way. I'm not sure any of them do.
I also have no answers.
This is the sort of thing that gives them all a coat with the same paint brush. What kind of person does this sort of thing? I KNOW there are zealots and weirdos in the US but when they do this sort of thing they are prosecuted. This probably will be OUR problem and we'll have to do all the legwork/prosecution IF the person is ever even found which is unlikely. I wonder about these people as a whole. I wonder why they are so...so...very NUTS about this stuff. Mohammad isn't Allah, for Christ's sake. He's a doooooooooood. A man. Or does he claim divinity? I dunno that much about it - I do know that innocent people who are trying to fucking calm this area of the world down are getting killed. I thank Allah every day that I'm not a woman living in Muslim-ville.
I wonder why they are so...so...very NUTS about this stuff. Mohammad isn't Allah, for Christ's sake. He's a doooooooooood. A man. Or does he claim divinity?
The Pope is man's connection to god. What the Pope says is god's word. So pedophilia that was all but protected by the church is acceptable. The Pope has even ordered Catholic doctrine to be imposed on US laws. Even abortion debates are only religion imposed on others.
They are only more violent while doing what so many Christians also do? That makes them evil and domestic Christians good?
Nonsense. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. The minute any religious belief is imposed on anyone else (ie an ambassador), then the religion is based in Satanism. An honest religion does not care what others say. Because honest religion does not affect any neighbor, iman, priest, rabi, minister, bishop, or religious text. An honest religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. An honest religion does not impose their beliefs on anyone else.
Tragedy. Lets just hope the radials on both sides don't cause rifts between the rational players in the US-Libya relationship.
Made me wonder if Obama or Romney had weighed in on this yet, so I looked it up, and Romney is a prick.
This is the sort of thing that gives them all a coat with the same paint brush.
Well that would make them easy to spot. :haha:
This probably will be OUR problem and we'll have to do all the legwork/prosecution IF the person is ever even found which is unlikely.
I agree it's highly unlikely. One report said it was a run-of-mill torches & pitchforks mob, like have attacked our embassies around the world many times. But they were accompanied by a handful of very heavily armed men. I realize most everyone over there carries an AK much of the time, but this seemed to indicate most of the mob did not, but this handful carried even more.
I wonder about these people as a whole. I wonder why they are so...so...very NUTS about this stuff. Mohammad isn't Allah, for Christ's sake. He's a doooooooooood. A man. Or does he claim divinity?
He claimed to be a prophet, who set down a guide to better living... like a medieval Martha Stewart. And as I understand it, what he outlined for the followers was pretty cool. However, the movers and shakers who claimed to be leading the masses in his teachings succumbed to the same power trip that the clerics of Jesus, Buddha, Pele, etc, did.
I dunno that much about it - I do know that innocent people who are trying to fucking calm this area of the world down are getting killed.
Who would that be, certainly not the Israelis, NATO, or US... as least not since 2003. Unless you mean just Libya, but that doesn't mean much with the whole region simmering.
He claimed to be a prophet, who set down a guide to better living... like a medieval Martha Stewart.
:D
Made me wonder if Obama or Romney had weighed in on this yet, so I looked it up, and Romney is a prick.
By borderline lying? The Romney campaign? Never.
@ Tril: try to bear in mind most of what we see of the muslim world is the bad stuff. That's what creates urgent situations and commands media attention.
In amongst all that insanity that we see, are ordinary people trying their hardest to live their lives, provide for their children, survive the various crises, and at the same time try and deal with all the ordinary stuff that breaks the best of us at times. There are doctors and nurses, teachers and engineers, bakers and road sweepers and people who rescue abused animals and campaign for things which many might think almost trivial in the face of regional meltdown.
They're just people. Muslims are just people. At various times in western history quite the wrong people have been allowed the full reigns of power and people have died for nothing in mass hysteria or cold, administrative abuse. At the centre, always, are people. Just people. However alien our cultures may seem to each other at times, we all eat, sleep, fuck and worry, raise our babies and cry when our loved ones are taken from us.
I want to be a live and let live kind of guy when it comes to the Muslims, but I don't think they all feel the same way. I'm not sure any of them do.
When you come to visit I'll introduce you to my family, I'm sure you'll feel different. From what we see on TV and read on the internet though, you might struggle to convince many of them in return that all Americans are 'live and let live' kind of folk like you.
A non-aggressive post.
If I judged all Catholics on the actions of the IRA I would have to kill myself.
If I judged all Muslims on those I personally knew I would have to convert.
It's not because these people are Muslim.
It's because they are crazy Arabs.
[COLOR="White"]an attempt at levity[/COLOR]
@ Tril: try to bear in mind most of what we see of the muslim world is the bad stuff. That's what creates urgent situations and commands media attention.
In amongst all that insanity that we see, are ordinary people trying their hardest to live their lives, provide for their children, survive the various crises, and at the same time try and deal with all the ordinary stuff that breaks the best of us at times. There are doctors and nurses, teachers and engineers, bakers and road sweepers and people who rescue abused animals and campaign for things which many might think almost trivial in the face of regional meltdown.
They're just people. Muslims are just people. At various times in western history quite the wrong people have been allowed the full reigns of power and people have died for nothing in mass hysteria or cold, administrative abuse. At the centre, always, are people. Just people. However alien our cultures may seem to each other at times, we all eat, sleep, fuck and worry, raise our babies and cry when our loved ones are taken from us.
I know, I know.
Shucks.
But still. Like many oppressive regimes, they treat their women like complete and utter shite. Ok, so do a lot of Christians. But, hopefully, HOPEFULLY, Christians are merely raping children whilst Muslims are stoning women for the crime of them being raped. That's a lame attempt at levity that prolly didn't work but I tried.
Ok. I"m not being really fair here, I realize, but I just watched a goofy film one of my FB friends (my best pal from gradeschool) posted and it has inflamed my feelings about them as was intended by said film.
You know what is REALLY weird? This girl was my best bud in gradeschool and now that she's all grown up, she's one of those Apocalypse Babes who posts all kinds of stuff on FB about how the END is coming/near/nearly here/etc. I never woulda guessed her for that.
She DID smoke a boatload of pot in high school i heard...
Oh, yeah. And part of the Yangtze River ran red yesterday or the day before. She posted that, too.
...the same power trip that the clerics of Jesus, Buddha, Pele, etc, did.
Hmm... I may just have found God.
Good pic, Pete. I saw those signs on the news coverage last night. Kind of gives one hope for basic humanity.
I'm in no condition to cite sources at this hour, but as Bruce said in post #7, from what I heard on NPR and, i think, MSNBC (could be mistaken on that count), the actual invaders in Benghazi were backed by people who could only have been armed by either an international terrorist syndicate or an organized national paramilitary group - a group of the type not backed by the recent popular uprising's government but more likely by the former pro-Gaddafi paramilitary thug organizations, though to be fair their arms could easily have been reappropriated - and so it's patently absurd to try to blame the wider Muslim society in Libya for the rioting or embassy assault, and even more ridiculous to try to blame all Muslims internationally for the wider sociopolitical context that led to the attack, or for anything resembling support for the murders.
I think I just got served by Ibby. What is she, 19 or something?
good post, Ibby. like I said, I was posting hastily. I was pissed off b/c this ambassador guy sounded like a real friend to those people. See? I was Romney-esque. talking before knowing all the facts.
..., the actual invaders in Benghazi were backed by people who could only have been armed by either an international terrorist syndicate or an organized national paramilitary group - a group of the type not backed by the recent popular uprising's government ...
It was Romney
Richard Engles:
At 10:25 p.m. ET Tuesday night -- after news of the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi
but before it was confirmed Stevens had been killed --
the Romney campaign released a statement in which Romney said,
Quote:
“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions
in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.
It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn
attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”<snip>
But a few hours later...
Andrea Mitichell:
Quote:
But NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that the Cairo embassy
statement was issued [COLOR="Red"]six hours before the mob attacked[/COLOR] the embassy.
She pressed Romney foreign policy advisor Ambassador Richard Williamson
to explain why Romney had criticized a statement made before the mob assault.
;)
good post, Ibby. like I said, I was posting hastily. I was pissed off
Yeah. So was I.
But look at what we did. We went to a message board and posted some pretty non-inflammatory words.
I wrote:
I want to be a live and let live kind of guy when it comes to the Muslims, but I don't think they all feel the same way. I'm not sure any of them do.
I'd take back that last sentence now. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Muslims are also live and let live. Just look at the numbers. In any angry, rioting, murderous mob you probably have only 1,000 maximum. Probably less than that. But let's say it's 1,000 people per mob.
There are about 2 billion Muslims in the world. So that's like 99.99995% of Muslims that are not attacking US embassies and killing the occupants.
And then the reports trickling in that this may have been a military action, and not a mob that was heavily armed changes the flavor of what actually went down.
When I made that post yesterday, the only news I had heard was that this heavily armed Muslim mob killed the Ambassador because of a YouTube video, and similar mobs were forming in other countries. I only saw reports of Muslims in favor of the mobs. Since then, I've seen a few Muslims condemning those acts of violence, and that's restoring my faith in mankind. I'd like to see more of that. Imagine a huge peace protest. Wouldn't that be cool?
Rather interesting is a rumored Isreali, living in California, who is credited with creating that video. He cannot be found. Is rumored to have gone into hiding. His name appears to be ficticous. Just like a super PAC that the Supreme Court said has the right to say anything they can pay for.
According to the Supremes, he has the right to vocalize an opinion as long as it is not a felony and he can pay for it. Therefore any fictional person or corporation can do this. Responsiblity no longer applies.
Since then, I've seen a few Muslims condemning those acts of violence, and that's restoring my faith in mankind. I'd like to see more of that. Imagine a huge peace protest. Wouldn't that be cool?
I don't know if it could be considered huge, but many in Benghazi are one step ahead of you.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/
I'm glad to see that. Supposedly a larger percentage of Libyans are still supportive of the US because of our help with overthrowing Qaddafi. According to what Clinton and Obama said in their statements, it was the Libyans who brought the injured Americans to the hospitals.
Edit: And just when we thought we there was hope, protestors in Yemen storm the US embassy there.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/us-embassy-yemen-under-seige-protestors/56813/And the response of Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi...
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E8KCJ5X20120912
Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi asked the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take legal action in the United States against makers of a film attacking the Muslim Prophet Mohammad, the official state news agency said on Wednesday.
Mursi had requested the mission take "all legal measures", the MENA agency said, without giving further details on what that might involve.
Thanks Mursi that'll help
And the response of Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi...
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E8KCJ5X20120912
Thanks Mursi that'll help
We may not agree, and he won't get anywhere doing it, but it's the civilized thing to do.
There are no laws in America that apply. Mursi is tacitly stating his support for *Egyptian* laws, says David Frum:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/egypt-s-morsi-using-1979-strategy-of-iran-s-khomeini.html
More serious is the exploitation by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president of the incident as support for anti-Islam blasphemy laws. It's important to understand that Morsi is concerned with Egyptian, not American, laws. Morsi is taking a page from the 1979 Khomeini playbook, fabricating an international incident to mobilize religious passions as a weapon for his political grouping against more secular blocs in Egyptian society - the Egyptian military very much included.
Another
take
The gist is that this was a planned attack in hopes of provoking a violent response from the Marine guards there. Apparently, this is a fairly standard tactic in certain locations around the world, not just the Arab world.
In related
news, the AP has published the identity of the person who made the film at the heart of this incident.
******************
Law enforcement has confirmed that the anti-Muslim movie blamed for attacks at US diplomatic buildings around the world was made by Los Angeles filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
The Associated Press reported early Thursday that Nakoula, 55, is responsible for the "Innocence of Muslims,” the film that was said to ridicule the prophet Muhammad and, in turn, prompt violent assaults on US land overseas, including missions in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the US Embassy in Yemen.
*****************
So, we now have allegations that both the pretext AND the result are both staged events. Hmmmmm.
Draw your own conclusions.
Pam
Rather interesting is a rumored Isreali
Coptic Christian.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/383717/20120912/nakoula-basile-innocence-muslims-copts-film.htm
Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film's director supported the concerns of Christian Copts in Egypt about their treatment by Muslims.
Nakoula denied posing as Bacile, who supposedly is an Israeli Jew, although the Israelis say they have no record of such a person.
Drink every time tw blames Israel or an Israeli and gets it wrong.
You must drinkApparently the Coptic Christian dude
explained that he was motivated because, “I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone.”
How'd that work for ya, Coptic Dude?
Fed wonderfully well into his world view and confirmed him in his own hatred, thankyouverymuch :P
I know, I know.
Shucks.
But still. Like many oppressive regimes, they treat their women like complete and utter shite. Ok, so do a lot of Christians. But, hopefully, HOPEFULLY, Christians are merely raping children whilst Muslims are stoning women for the crime of them being raped. That's a lame attempt at levity that prolly didn't work but I tried.
Ok. I"m not being really fair here, I realize, but I just watched a goofy film one of my FB friends (my best pal from gradeschool) posted and it has inflamed my feelings about them as was intended by said film.
You know what is REALLY weird? This girl was my best bud in gradeschool and now that she's all grown up, she's one of those Apocalypse Babes who posts all kinds of stuff on FB about how the END is coming/near/nearly here/etc. I never woulda guessed her for that.
She DID smoke a boatload of pot in high school i heard...
Hey! I smoked a boatload of pot when I was that age (assuming you mean senior high = sixth form college here:p).
I know you know this stuff Tril. You're a good egg. And we're all entitled to be unfair or unreasonable sometimes :p
I think the only reason Christian Fundamentalists aren't as deadly as Islamic Fundamentalists is because our legal system has checks in place against murder. If we had a Christian version of Sharia law there'd be a lot more Christian Soldiers marching Onward as to war...
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
Let's take metaphor and make it literal!
You didn't live through The Troubles.
Not fundies, but rabid as frothing dogs all the same.
There were riots in
Belfast this month over the routes of marches (link to BBC website)
Who do the Orangemen march in support of? Good King Billy.
That's William of Orange. He died in 1702.
I'm not beating a dead horse about Islam, I really appreciate the later posts people have made. I'm just beating my usual dead donkey-shaped pinata about the violence I grew up with.
Coptic Christian.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/383717/20120912/nakoula-basile-innocence-muslims-copts-film.htm
Drink every time tw blames Israel or an Israeli and gets it wrong.
You must drink
Listened to a story about this on NPR on the way back from class just now. It's not online yet
but will be soon.
Someone called the Associated Press and blamed the video on an Israeli-American, who turned out to not be a real person. The person who called turned out to be Nakoula, the filmmaker - who is on probation after serving two years for an $800,000 bank fraud. One of the terms of his probation was that he not use the Internet - but it was under his israeli-american pseudonym that he posted the video to youtube.
The video itself may not be prosecutable, but we can probably go after the guy on probation violation anyway...
I didn't hear any of this about the filmmaker until driving home tonight. Surfing the stations I heard two conservative and/or religious station ranting about the attention being given to the filmmaker.
I initially agreed that he had the right to promote his views. If, however, he deliberately posed as an Israeli Jew with the intent to incite violence, then he should have the book thrown at him.
BTW, is it me or is Romney coming off looking bad in all this. He gets the facts wrong, mostly by rushing ahead to beat out the administration, and then pushes forward instead of acknowledging the error. Not a good combination. It's more likely to be a recipe for another 10 year, trillion dollar war.
Hardcore conservatives and pundits like Rush are defending him, but I think he lost points with independents.
Al-Qaeda released a video the morning of Sept. 11, urging Islamists to attack America to avenge the drone-strike killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi (lit. of Libya). Every piece of reporting that's coming out is confirming that the attack on the consulate was an armed militant organization with a complex assault plan. Rachel Maddow started her show tonight (and is still talking about the connections and evidence, including part of an al-Jazeera report that included interviews with witnesses to the attack who say there was no PROTEST before the attack - just an attack!) explaining the evidence that the attack had little or nothing to do with the video sparking protests in Cairo and Yemen and elsewhere. When the video goes up on the MSNBC website around midnight I'll try to post it - the first fifteen minutes alone are absolutely revelatory.
Drink every time tw blames Israel or an Israeli and gets it wrong.
Did you bother to read the second paragraph?
Therefore any fictional person or corporation can do this.
I kept it short and you still missed the point.
I think I've managed to get a link to the relevant opening section of tonight's Rachel Maddow Show that highlights the Al-Qaeda/terrorist connections to Tuesday's attack on the Benghazi consulate. The highly-relevant story is only fifteen minutes or so, and well worth the watch, if you want to be highly informed to talk about the situation, I think.
Libya attack puts spotlight on Al Qaeda terror affiliates
Rachel Maddow describes the evidence that points to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as having been an organized terrorist attack, and shows how Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda-like terror groups have established themselves throughout Africa.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49027233#49027233
I think I've managed to get a link to the relevant opening section of tonight's Rachel Maddow Show that highlights the Al-Qaeda/terrorist connections to Tuesday's attack on the Benghazi consulate. The highly-relevant story is only fifteen minutes or so, and well worth the watch, if you want to be highly informed to talk about the situation, I think.
I think I might have a particular level of interest in this story, considering that my mother works for the State Department and my dad works, as a Department of Defense civilian, closely with State Department personell at our overseas State Department missions, and that I plan to work for the State Department as a Foreign Service Officer as soon as I have my bachelor's degree. I'm closely associated with and highly interested in the State Department, and therefore, our State Dep't officers and their well-being. So, I'm trying to be as up-to-date and informed on this situation as possible - and since the Cellar is one of the places I am the most engaged on politics and current events, I want to share with you what I learn about their operations, especially when it becomes part of important American news and policy.
This attack was NOT a rowdy torch-and-pitchfork mob of angry Libyan civilians overrunning our state department mission (consulate) in Benghazi. this was an organized and planned terrorist/militant attack on (percieved) American imperialism and diplomacy by a terror-affiliated paramilitary organization. the attack on our Yemeni embassy, detailed later in the show (after the first fifteen minutes), which resulted in the destruction of Embassy property, vehicles, and defenses, but NOT loss of American life, is what happens when mobs attack our facilities abroad. It's deplorable, but not at all the same as the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Rachel is right to question the very notion that the Benghazi attack had ANYTHING to do with the shitty-ass, pathetic fifteen-minute youtube video that cities across the Muslim world are protesting.
Hmm... I may just have found God.
Wrong Pele.
He is the God of my youth, I'm mature enough to know that I strayed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254 Killed over a low budget movie, really?
Muslims take their independent film making seriously.
This attack was NOT a rowdy torch-and-pitchfork mob of angry Libyan civilians overrunning our state department mission (consulate) in Benghazi. this was an organized and planned terrorist/militant attack on (perceived) American imperialism and diplomacy by a terror-affiliated paramilitary organization.
A Benghazi consulate attack was well coordinated and planned according to the NY Times. In particular was the second attack. Apparently the attackers had an inside informant. So they knew exactly when and where to attack the rescue convoy carrying American and Libyan personal.
Video from some hiding person may only be an excuse. A simultaneous and maybe unrelated event. The consulate attack occurred without any preceding demonstrations, according to interviews reported in the NY Times. The first attack was sudden and unexpected.
That video was posted on the first of July. I'm sure they were saving it as an excuse to stir up shit on 9-11. I'd also bet they planned this attack to coincide with the widespread fomentation of demonstrations so it would appear to be a result of ordinary Muslims outraged, rather than being an obvious terrorist attack.
The impression I have is that the Benghazi attack had absolutely nothing to do with the video, but since it happened somewhat concurrently with the Cairo protests that were about the video, it was a reasonable first impression that they were related, until more facts came in.
Since then, protests in other countries have been about not being upstaged by Cairo and Benghazi, rather than about the video per se.
Just to say, although I do not tar all Muslims with the same brush and object when I feel other people do so, I am revolted by the band-wagon-jumping and in my mind unjustified killing and rioting over this silly, small budget film.
A French photographer took photos of the Duchess of Cambridge's boobies, am I trying to burn down the French Embassy? No. Although they burn our sheep and all that.
I do appreciate people's different sensibilities, but this is civil unrest dressed up. Although I accept it is on countries going through a state of flux, it draws in completely innocent people and therefore should be condemned.
Stay home and pray if you think your God has been insulted.
I said the same about the riots in London last year, which disgusted me.
Forge ties within your own community rather than burning it down.
Stay home and teach your children that education helps avoid stereotyping.
I doubt all these protests are solely because of the movie. There is a of built up anger among some Muslims in these countries and it seems to all have come out because of the movie.
A talking-head used a phrase that I thought appropriate.
Some people are just "waiting to be insulted"
A talking-head used a phrase that I thought appropriate.
Some people are just "waiting to be insulted"
I didn't know the talking heads even knew what The Cellar was! ;)
Some people are just "waiting to be insulted"
It characterizes an adult who is still a child.
I doubt all these protests are solely because of the movie. There is a of built up anger among some people in these countries and it seems to all have come out because they've been told it's okay now they have an excuse.
FIFY
But yes, I agree with your post as written.
The below popped up on my facebook feed, immediately after reading this thread. I thought it was rather apropos, so here it is:
13 powerful images of Muslim rage
Personally speaking, having lived in the middle east for several years, I don't see "muslims" as any different than "christians" or "catholics" or "atheists", for example. There are fanatics and and hatemongers among most religious groups, including muslims. They don't speak for all of them. And a few religious fanatics don't represent an entire culture or country, by far.
He looks like he has jizz in his hair.
to be fair, he kinda looks like that irl too...
An acquaintance of mine--who, if you'd pressed me, I might have guessed was Muslim, but I'd never thought about it before--has suddenly started dropping Masha Allah and Insha Allah all over the place in her emails to me. I figure maybe she's felt persecuted recently, or is trying to show the world in her small way that a normal person like her can be Muslim too.
[size=1]Except the funny thing is she's not normal, she's a big ol' bag of crazy. But only in a suburban ill-equipped mother kind of way, not a significant way.[/size]
http://i.imgur.com/Hjbrj.png
goosebumps.
Thank you Pete.
An acquaintance of mine--who, if you'd pressed me, I might have guessed was Muslim, but I'd never thought about it before--has suddenly started dropping Masha Allah and Insha Allah all over the place in her emails to me. I figure maybe she's felt persecuted recently, or is trying to show the world in her small way that a normal person like her can be Muslim too.
[size=1]Except the funny thing is she's not normal, she's a big ol' bag of crazy. But only in a suburban ill-equipped mother kind of way, not a significant way.[/size]
Have a Namaste day :)
I watched pieces of this video. It is clearly, obviously, and amateurly stolen/edited/dubbed differently than what the actors are saying. it's a total hatchet job of the work the actors did, after the fact, to make an appallingly bad cheesy straight to youtube piece of moviemaking. the references to religion were all overdubbed, and those are the ones that when translated into arabic are the most offfensive. It's just meant to offend. To provoke. To pick a fight.
some people WANT TO FIGHT. sometimes, I wish they would, and just neutralize each other. but it's never that neat. other people get hurt and killed. what a fucking waste.
I watched pieces of this video. It is clearly, obviously, and amateurly stolen/edited/dubbed differently than what the actors are saying. it's a total hatchet job of the work the actors did, after the fact, to make an appallingly bad cheesy straight to youtube piece of moviemaking. the references to religion were all overdubbed, and those are the ones that when translated into arabic are the most offfensive. It's just meant to offend. To provoke. To pick a fight.
some people WANT TO FIGHT. sometimes, I wish they would, and just neutralize each other. but it's never that neat. other people get hurt and killed. what a fucking waste.
Even more than the inflammatory speech I was seriously offended by the cheap green screen effects.
wow. That is one bad movie. I could do better blindfolded and on crack.
I only watched a bit of it b/c it was just ...so...bad.
Worse than Sophie Coppola's Marie Antoinette - which, honey, was bad.
Great news: Libyans fight back!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/pro-american-libyans-besiege-militant-group-in-benghazi.html
Galvanized by anger over the killing of the popular American ambassador here last week, thousands of Libyans marched through this city on Friday, demanding the disarming of the militias that helped topple the dictatorship but have troubled the country with their refusal to disband.
In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
...
“We want justice for Chris,” read one sign among the estimated 30,000 Libyans, including families, who marched into Benghazi’s main square on Friday to protest in front of the main encampment of Ansar al-Sharia.
Some held signs reading “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Many protesters carried Libyan flags, and government police officers could be seen mingling with the marchers.
Members of Ansar al-Sharia held a counterdemonstration, and arguments erupted between the opposing sides, but no violence occurred, at least not initially. Protesters chanted: “You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan.”
Libya ain't Egypt!
The Lybians went one better, they
ran the fuckers out of town.
Hundreds of Libyan protesters forced members of the main Salafist militia out of their base in the second city of Benghazi Friday, setting fire to and wrecking the military compound.
I've been thinking about my and others' reaction to this whole thing. My view of Islam and its adherents is complicated. Having been inside, I have little love for organized religion. Like any ideology, be it fascism, progressivism, conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism taken and embraced it gives a false clarity to the workings of the world. The blind spots created are defended relentlessly.
My own blind spot is in the department of perpetual war. I can't see the value in helping to topple dictators when the most obvious power to fill the vacuum is the religious nutter who will be even more oppressive than someone not speaking for god. I'm glad a more moderate Libya is standing up, but I'd be lying if I said I expected good government types to have the staying power of religious nuts.
As far as Moslems in the West are concerned, they must be more open as people to choose emigration. Those I've worked with basically match the other religious in the US, who interestingly, are condemned for their beliefs by militant liberalism at about the same level as Islam is defended by the same. The bottom line to me is that organized religion, which seeks to alter society rather than the individual is a great enemy of liberty and should be acknowledged as such.
being in the military, i'm offended that these americans were not given the requested support. there was a uas circling overhead providing ongoing coverage of the battle to the situation room. hell, they even had a seal on the roof lasing targets and requesting spectre gunship support. denied. they were left to die
Being a critical thinker, I'm offended that the worst possible outcome is being endlessly repeated and worse, believed by those who've put their trust in Fox News. I have far greater trust in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon, all of whom have rejected the Fox News' conclusion you have repeated.
Following a pair of denials by the CIA and the National Security Council to a Fox News story published Friday, the Pentagon has come under scrutiny for its response to the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. However, in a statement to The Atlantic Wire, a senior defense official says the Pentagon never rejected requests for military intervention in Benghazi. Not only that, the official said no such requests were ever made.
Fox's record for getting the facts straight is poor, and most especially in situations that are republican red meat like this. Fox doesn't know what happened, no more than their ex-Seal expert knows what happened. Drawing conclusions like "they were left to die" is not responsible journalism, it's yellow journalism; it is pure sensationalism.
If you're interested in *what happened*, follow the investigations.
Here is a good link for you to read. It includes a couple **hypothetical** situations that accommodates the statements of all parties.
To Zaid, it's perfectly plausible that the vagueness of the Pentagon and CIA denials is a result of still not knowing the whole of what happened in Benghazi. "When the fog of war surrounds an event it is not at all unusual for individual agencies, such as the CIA or DoD, or the White House to limit their statements to the knowledge they possess at the time rather than something all-encompassing for the entire Executive Branch," he said. "Simply put, none of these entities likely fully know what the other did or did not know at the time."
But right now, we don't know all of what happened, and no one there could have known the whole situation either. To suggest otherwise is Monday morning quarterbacking at best, invidious character assassination at worst. Let's see what happened before we hang anyone for treason, hmmm?
It seems that Bengazhi was due to a breakdown of communication somewhere down the line and probably not to due to incompetence of an entire group. I don't think anyone knows what actually happened yet.
No, it's Obama's fault. Romney would have grabbed his bayonet, jumped on his horse, and rescued the ambassador.
No, it's Obama's fault. Romney would have grabbed his bayonet, jumped on his horse, and rescued the ambassador.
Now there's an image...
I believe Romney would have used force to save American lifes. Our current administration is too apologetic to the Muslim world. An example is allowing the Iraqi government to decide whether or not we withdrew our forces. Seems like I remember we won that war
Yeah we won, in 2003, "mission accomplished", remember?
Oh wait, we "won", when Gen Petraeus convinced the natives that if they helped us whup the insurgents streaming into the country, we would go home.
You see, most of us don't want Iraq to be a state, not even a possession, because if that happens, nobody will ever trust us again.
Well then what the fuck are we still there for, nine years later?
Oh that's right, we're doing that "nation building" we don't do.
Hmm, how do you know when you're done?
I guess you ask the nation you built, if they are ready to go it alone.
But I'm sure Romney would give you better job security, at least until you're dead.
I believe Romney would have used force to save American lifes.
Only fools and weak presidents routinely force to obtain victories. Let's see. Haiti. How many American soldiers died in that invasion? Smarter leaders won the entire war without firing a shot.
Bosnia. Let's see. Once we decided the Europeans could not solve their own problem, then we had Milosevik negotiate himself right out of his job. 100,000 American soldiers and $1trillion spent to fight our way in? Oh. Intelligent leaders solved the whole thing by expensing near zero munitions.
Great leaders find solutions without wasting American solders uselessly (ie Mission Accomplished, VietNam, Lebanon). That was 5000 American soldiers massacred because a president was so dumb stupid as to "use force to save American lifes". To even protect America from mythical weapons.
Weak and demented leaders, such as George Jr and Nixon, even lied to themself. And therefore massacred Americans for no purpose. Because inferior leaders only see solutions in military crusades.
I believe Romney would have used force to save American lifes. Our current administration is too apologetic to the Muslim world. An example is allowing the Iraqi government to decide whether or not we withdrew our forces. Seems like I remember we won that war
I'm sure you're aware that using force also sacrifices American lives. Basically, neither option would guarantee American lives are saved. Granted, soldiers are expected to lose their lives in conflict and granted, they would likely have had a better shot at surviving than the ambassador, but someone was gonna die. It was just be a matter of whose life is lost. Using force would mean the decision is made that the one ambassador was worth however many soldier lives the force would have taken during AND after the fact, assuming the use of force was successful.
Also, last I remember, Iraq is still its own country and we had turned sovereignty over to them back in 2004. That being the case, and as long as we're not contractually obliged by their government, such as it is, to remain, they have every right to tell us GTFO and we need to honor that if we're not at war with them. Gratitude has no currency value in this case, not if we can't keep the promises made way back when to rebuild the infrastructure.
How long did we occupy the Phillipines, Germany, and Japan?? Did we leave because they told us to go? Also, I believe strongly we should have seized the oil to pay our debts.
Mythical weapons in Iraq??? Re-check your facts. Open Source reporting acknowledges there were chemical weapons recovered. I personally know 2 soldiers injured by them. Also, Open Source reporting has revealed the insurgents were using chlorine gas bombs. Chemical weapons are a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
BTW, don't blame Vietnam on the Republicans. That was a mess created by Democrats and it was a Republican who got us out. I just can't see a Republican President watching real time uas footage and not sending troops to rescue them. Remember, that consulate was considered US Soil.
How long did we occupy the Phillipines, Germany, and Japan?? Did we leave because they told us to go?
Did they tell us to GTFO?
BTW, don't blame Vietnam on the Republicans. That was a mess created by Democrats and it was a Republican who got us out. I just can't see a Republican President watching real time uas footage and not sending troops to rescue them. Remember, that consulate was considered US Soil.
You talking about Eisenhower (R) with his nation-building project covered by SEATO? The one where his pet nation South Vietnam elected a right bastard for a president, who then claimed to be under attack from North Vietnam because the North very publicly didn't like him, thus starting the war itself in 1957?
Or do you mean Kennedy (D) who didn't immediately send troops to clean up the mess when the skirmishes started, but did go on the indirect offense with missions like Operation Ranch Hand?
Or Johnson (D) who was president when Tonkin happened and the battles really ramped up?
Or Nixon (R) with his Vietnamization, Christmas Bombing and the signing of a peace treaty that ended the war for the US but not for Eisenhower's pet nation South Vietnam, effectively abandoning it and allowing it to get taken over by the North?
Lots of failures for both sides of the aisle there.
Lots of failures for both sides of the aisle there.
Only extremists would blame one side of the aisle. To ignore the problem. We know from Nixon's tapes that Kissinger and Nixon discussed what they knew was already an American defeat. But Nixon's #1 concern: not surrender on his watch. So he massacred the most American soldiers in that useless and unnecessary war.
In that draft, the Officer said they would do everything possible to keep us all out of the Army. 150 went in. Only 13 were physically fit for the Army. That President was more concerned for his legacy than the nation, a solution, or American soldiers. Even Army officers knew better.
Why was Alexander so Great? He also did what informed and intelligent leaders do. He negotiated so that his soldiers would not be wasted in battle. He also did not foolishly do the equivalent of "seizing oil to pay debts". Only dumb stupid leaders do that.
Romney would have to use "force to save American lifes". Because his people have a long history of getting Americans in trouble. Unilaterally attacking others even for no reason. Talking belligerently. And putting more Americans at risk. Informed leaders and military know the best way to save lives is to not make military force necessary. History demonstrates only the informed avert a need for military force. So many examples posted previously.
Why did Colin Powell avert a military conflict with China? Again, the informed solve problems without military force. By silencing wackos in George Jr's administration. And by negotiating to solve an otherwise simple problem. Those wackos that so wanted a China war are the baggage that Romney would bring to the White House.
Wackos routinely see conflict as a solution. Especially when it created a bogeyman.
Mythical weapons of mass destruction: some gas (which is routinely found even in semiconductor fabs) is not a WMD. But wackos harm American soldiers by solving all problems with a military adventure. By even inventing mythical threats.
Smart leaders would have heard what every nation, adjacent to Iraq, said. He was a threat to no one. 'Big dic' thinking would routinely massacre American soldiers for greater glory. To even steal oil and treasure to pay for it. America does not need leaders who find solutions in military crusades. America is still suffering (ie this recession) from that stupidity.
'Big dic' thinking is the last thing we want in the White House. History says why.
Why was Alexander so Great?
...
He also did not foolishly do the equivalent of "seizing oil to pay debts". Only dumb stupid leaders do that.
I bet he did. Wars of conquest to take natural resources are a historical reality that I am not as anxious as Big Sarge for us to return to.
How long did we occupy the Phillipines?
long enough to commit
genocide for not-our-first-time. Pretty sure that's not a great example, mate.
BTW, don't blame Vietnam on the Republicans.
That was a mess created by Democrats and it was a Republican who got us out.
I just can't see a Republican President watching real time uas
footage and not sending troops to rescue them.
Remember, that consulate was considered US Soil.
Sarge, please tell us why the Republicans ripped Jimmy Carter, a Democratic President,
for losing one helicopter and several lives in an unsuccessful raid
to free hostages in Iran in Operation Eagle Claw (1980).
Caveat: Be careful to whom you attribute blame for the aborting of this mission.
How long did we occupy the Phillipines, Germany, and Japan?? Did we leave because they told us to go? Also, I believe strongly we should have seized the oil to pay our debts.
.
I don't know anything much about the Philipines, but as far as I am aware America went to war with Germany and Japan because of an attack on American territory.
Iraq was supposedly 'liberated' from an oppressive dictator. Time and again we were told that we were not at war with the Iraqi people. So why are we now talking in terms of winners and losers, defeated and victorious?
Not leaving until you decide, regardless of the desires of the nation you are occupying sounds a lot like imperialism to me.
If Obama gets reelected, I'd like to see him offer Romney an appointment as Ambassador to Libya (in the spirit of bipartisanship of course).
Cyber Wolf - The truth is the first US troops were sent into French Indochina by President Truman in 1950 to train the Vietnamese and support the French. At the end of Eisenhower's term, there were 796 US troops in country. You should also note that Eisenhower vetoed a plan to use tactical nukes.
Kennedy increased the US presence to 16,000 troops. Johnson was the one that turned it into a full blown war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964 gave Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. This resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed necessary. It has since come to light that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration in order to gain power to wage war.
The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam
Mythical weapons of mass destruction: some gas (which is routinely found even in semiconductor fabs) is not a WMD. But wackos harm American soldiers by solving all problems with a military adventure. By even inventing mythical threats.
Weapons of Mass Destruction are Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. From the Associated Press: "Iraqi authorities filed genocide charges against Saddam Hussein on Tuesday, accusing the ousted ruler and six others in a 1980s crackdown that killed an estimated 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. In alleging Saddam sought to exterminate the Kurds, the prosecutors are for the first time accusing him of the sort of far-reaching crimes that the Bush administration has used to justify the war in Iraq."
Do you remember "Chemical Ali"? Anyway, in 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country. Also, the Iraq Government sold over 500 tons of "yellowcake", the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, to Canada.
We even had US casualties due to detonation of chemical munitions. Even the New York Post reported:
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported. The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site. Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.
And the claims that they could be launched within 45 minutes? Or that theyhad restarted their nuclear programme, had been buying enriched uranium, etc etc?
The simple fact that Hussein's regime possessed some battlefield chemical weapons would never have been enough to go to war. It was only coupled with shameful lies about his intentions and capabilities along with the repeated suggestion that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks that allowed that war to happen.
You and other soldiers were lied to by politicians, who saw fit to send serving men to fight and die for political expediency and outright deceit.
The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam
Yep.
The Philippines asked us to GTFO and we did.
"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."
-Colin Powell 2002
You know, alongside all my horror at what was done to the ordinary people of Iraq, and the terrible assault on Baghdad, it breaks my heart a little whenever I think about the several lads from my region who died for the lie. And who died in Afghanistan because the initial mission to go after Bin Laden took second place to the Iraq venture.
They deserved better than that. They deserved at the least some honesty. And maybe decent equipment, and not to be abandoned to market forces on their return.
The Philippines asked us to GTFO and we did.
"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."
-Colin Powell 2002
This is worth repeating.
I really don't like that 'we won, why are we letting them tell us when to leave?' attitude. It sits ill on an American.
And all this fear of appearing weak on the international stage. It's ludicrous. Nobody thinks America is weak. Nobody. There isn't a country on the planet that wouldn't feel intimidated at the prospect of a war with the US. The threat doesn't need to constantly be made. The aggressive posturing some people seem to favour does not make you look stronger. Looking down from the high ground with calm demeanour does.
And all this fear of appearing weak on the international stage. It's ludicrous.
How many bother to discuss greatest victories such as Haiti and Bosnia? Roundly successful victories because no invasion was necessary. Those inspired by emotions only discuss big expensive military crusades including Vietnam and Mission Accomplished. Both disasters. Those with least grasp of military doctrine and least respect for the American soldier want more bloody fiascos. Enemy of a military are 'big dic' thinkers.
Identify the informed who best represent servicemen. Praise to the few who actually created victories without massive deployments. Praise the few who also understood phase four planning. Amazing are so many with a military mentality who so strongly wanted disasters such as Vietnam and Misson Accomplish. Even a 'smoking gun' concept is foreign to 'big dic' thinkers.
Most servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of dumb leaders in America. And their followers. They don't come dumber than George Jr and his adminstration. Citizens who failed to see impending obvious disasters are also guilty. Everyone in the Cellar learned, in advance, why those disasters would happen. And still, some gleefully approved of the resulting and unnecessary massacre of servicemen.
Why was the US building the world's largest embassy in Iraq? We intended to stay. More 'big dic' thinking complete with denial. Those who love 'big dic' concepts and lies (ie Axis of Evil) did not intend to leave. So that we can protect "our" oil. Another 'empire building' fiasco.
Big dics now say the American military is smallest since before WWI. Enemy of every American serviceman is the fool who would vote for such liars. Who say our military is too small. As if George Jr did not prove how stupid those people are. How many so stupidly did not learn from the disasters in Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan? Deja Vue Nam.
... Most servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of dumb leaders in America. ... Citizens who failed to see impending obvious disasters are also guilty. ...
[Bold mine]
[IMHO]This is why it's easy for others to attack any Americans anytime and anywhere. In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets. It's a good reason to vote and make it an informed vote since you'll be held accountable for the ramifications of election outcomes anyway.
In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.
Post Vietnam, our active duty military was downsized by shifting the function of many support units and some combat units to be held in reserve to the Reserves and National Guard. It was towards the end of the transition that Iraq invaded Kuwait and we weren't prepared to go into Iraq to conquer just the government which takes more ground forces than simply annihilating a country from the air. George Sr. just pushed them back and stopped. Many considered it unfinished business.
The events of 9/11 unfolded and George Jr. saw an opportunity to finish daddy's work. It was also payback time for the Iraqi leader who tried to have daddy assassinated so: 1.) We were told his government had WMD; but, we already knew that. The significance was bloated and exposed as such. 2.) Then we were told his government had terrorist connections. Again, the significance was bloated and exposed as such. 3.) Finally, we were told that we were saving the Iraqi people. This, in contradiction to our existing military intervention policy requiring 3 conditions (all 3 to be met) before intervening: 1. The indigenous population has to want us there (we weren't invited). 2. They have to be willing to fight for themselves (they weren't willing enough to fight to begin a revolt against dictatorship) and 3. They have to be able to continue what we've helped them accomplish after we leave (not likely wherever there's infighting among major religious factions).
The Iraqi leader and his government were toppled for daddy and son and their posterity while their cronies reaped benefits from war. We might have stayed longer; but, the new elected government representing those people we were supposedly there to save, who didn't invite us, who weren't inclined to start their own Arab Spring, and who are still fighting among themselves wanted to make all Americans (including the military under country SOFA) subject to their laws. How rude, it's like they didn't trust Americans to conduct themselves responsibly and exercise good judgment. :rolleyes:[/IMHO]
Well the first thing you know, Obama's in the chair
His constituency says "Prez, get us outta there."
Said "Afghanistan is where the buildup oughta be"
So we do it all again in the land of poppy seed.
Leaving unfinished business that is
Relax, leave your wallets out
Don't look back now, ya hear.
In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets.
As a result, democracies typically do not attack other democracies. I cannot think of an exception.
We would have been out of Afghanistan. But Generals (ie Petraus, et al) proposed a solution that began with a surge. And ended with a complete pullout. Obama went with their plan. But Obama keep saying some Generals don't get it. They kept sneaking in plans for another 10 year occupation (warfare) in Afghanistan. Obama told them bluntly. We are leaving when the plan is done. That is when we discover if George Jr's mistake (Mission Accomplished) cost us a victory in Afghanistan.
Of course, Romney's people openly advocate more war. Playing politics rather then deal with, for example, why 5000 American soldiers (and other nation's troops) were killled uselessly. They see all solutions in increasing military budgets. A 'soundbyte' solution advocated by Fox News, Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al. Romney recites what extremists want to hear rather than what is best for America and American allies.
Many Generals still assume Americans will gladly increase military spending over 4% of GDP. Such numbers historically result in economic stagnation or destruction. Generals had unlimited funds for too long. Those generals are encouraged by 'big dic' civilians who would solve all problems with more military adventures. Would even remain in Afghanistan for another decade.
Shameful how many Americans still did not learn the lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Only better educated Americans would have learned that lesson.
The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam
Yep.
Yabut, after the civil rights laws Johnson pushed through, all those southern democrats became republicans, so now they own it. :lol:
[Bold mine]
[IMHO]This is why it's easy for others to attack any Americans anytime and anywhere. In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets. It's a good reason to vote and make it an informed vote since you'll be held accountable for the ramifications of election outcomes anyway.
In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.
Post Vietnam, our active duty military was downsized by shifting the function of many support units and some combat units to be held in reserve to the Reserves and National Guard. It was towards the end of the transition that Iraq invaded Kuwait and we weren't prepared to go into Iraq to conquer just the government which takes more ground forces than simply annihilating a country from the air. George Sr. just pushed them back and stopped. Many considered it unfinished business.
The events of 9/11 unfolded and George Jr. saw an opportunity to finish daddy's work. It was also payback time for the Iraqi leader who tried to have daddy assassinated so: 1.) We were told his government had WMD; but, we already knew that. The significance was bloated and exposed as such. 2.) Then we were told his government had terrorist connections. Again, the significance was bloated and exposed as such. 3.) Finally, we were told that we were saving the Iraqi people. This, in contradiction to our existing military intervention policy requiring 3 conditions (all 3 to be met) before intervening: 1. The indigenous population has to want us there (we weren't invited). 2. They have to be willing to fight for themselves (they weren't willing enough to fight to begin a revolt against dictatorship) and 3. They have to be able to continue what we've helped them accomplish after we leave (not likely wherever there's infighting among major religious factions).
The Iraqi leader and his government were toppled for daddy and son and their posterity while their cronies reaped benefits from war. We might have stayed longer; but, the new elected government representing those people we were supposedly there to save, who didn't invite us, who weren't inclined to start their own Arab Spring, and who are still fighting among themselves wanted to make all Americans (including the military under country SOFA) subject to their laws. How rude, it's like they didn't trust Americans to conduct themselves responsibly and exercise good judgment. :rolleyes:[/IMHO]
Well the first thing you know, Obama's in the chair
His constituency says "Prez, get us outta there."
Said "Afghanistan is where the buildup oughta be"
So we do it all again in the land of poppy seed.
Leaving unfinished business that is
Relax, leave your wallets out
Don't look back now, ya hear.
Excellent post, sexobon.
I especially like this part:
In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.
Cyber Wolf - The truth is the first US troops were sent into French Indochina by President Truman in 1950 to train the Vietnamese and support the French. At the end of Eisenhower's term, there were 796 US troops in country. You should also note that Eisenhower vetoed a plan to use tactical nukes.
Kennedy increased the US presence to 16,000 troops. Johnson was the one that turned it into a full blown war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964 gave Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. This resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed necessary. It has since come to light that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration in order to gain power to wage war.
The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam
Well, the French and the Vietminh were already waging decisive battles for nearly a decade before that. As you said, Eisenhower sent aid to the French, initially involving the US on a military level in the conflict. He also helped set the stage for war to happen. So, are we talking about war, as in when we started/joined in the fighting there (initially done by Eisenhower) or war, as in an official piece of paper saying we're going to fight (passed by Democratic Congress years later)?
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a response to the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin days earlier, where a North Vietnamese boat fired on a US destroyer. Seeing how it was a direct attack, and considering the US was already over there fighting and conducting war missions, it's not surprising the resolution was passed, more like a formality than a peace-to-war escalation. An "Oh, you done it now, son!" moment, if you will.
Well, the French and the Vietminh were already waging decisive battles for nearly a decade before that.
Didn't we (Truman) arm the previously ousted French after the Japanese lost Vietnam helping France control the South for the anticommunists?
Didn't we (Truman) arm the previously ousted French ...
Using above reasoning, then America was at war with the Taliban long before 11 September. Arming or providing covert assistance is unlike war.
I lay the War ® at Johnson's feet, but CyberWolf was digging into the roots of the conflict which was us re-arming the previous Vichy French occupiers after Japan went belly up.
There was only one attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson fabricated the second incident in order to obtain the power to wage war without the approval of Congress.
There was only one attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson fabricated the second incident in order to obtain the power to wage war without the approval of Congress.
What second incident? I've only read about and talked about the one on August 2. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was done days later as a response to the attack on August 2.
I lay the War ® at Johnson's feet, but CyberWolf was digging into the roots of the conflict which was us re-arming the previous Vichy French occupiers after Japan went belly up.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. The Official War on Paper was under Johnson, but the military actions, events and battles with US involvement that led to Johnson making that decision was started much earlier under Eisenhower. He's not blameless in this.
Kind of like suggesting Obama fucked up the economy and broke the democracy.
Kind of like suggesting Obama fucked up the economy and broke the democracy.
I thought he did
What second incident? I've only read about and talked about the one on August 2. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was done days later as a response to the attack on August 2.
Johnson reported 2 attacks initiated by the North Vietnamese to Congress. I'm referring to the Aug 4th incident. When the National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.
The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.
Regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2
Johnson reported 2 attacks initiated by the North Vietnamese to Congress. I'm referring to the Aug 4th incident. When the National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.
The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.
Regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2
So either we were actually the aggressor in that fight, as was apparently not reported, or we were still responding to a perceived aggressive act, which was reported.
Not defending a fabrication, but the first night's issue was enough to warrant an escalation. The North was already an enemy at that point and what good commander lets an enemy ship during active fighting get within firing range? Do the released secrets say if the enemy ship knew we were there before fighting? Did they know to back the eff up?
So either we were actually the aggressor in that fight, as was apparently not reported, or we were still responding to a perceived aggressive act, which was reported.
One American destroyer was involved in covert actions against N Vietnam when challenged by Vietnam torpedo boats. A second destroyer joined. On the second night, Turner Joy and Maddox were fighting radar images and false reports of torpedos in the water. Crews were nervous.
Back in Washington doubt about that second night. Did not matter. The powers that be were looking for any excuse to escalate.
Later confirmed is what happened. Did not matter. Saddam had WMDs. An exact same attitude needed any excuse to escalate ever since Johnson visited Vietnam saying those were yellow skinned American boys who needed our help. Big dics in the millitary (including Gen LeMay) wanted any excuse for war.
Johnson eventually realized his mistake. Even Johnson apparently learned the war was not winnable. When Walter Cronkite said so, Johnson was looking for a way out. Even sent Vietnam a promise for massive aid if we and they only ended the conflict. But Vietnam was not interested. Vietnam knew they had won.
Nixon and Kissenger also knew Vietnam had already won. But one difference existed. Nixon could not have America's first military defeat on his watch. So Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined to only protect his legacy. The worse and most destructive parts of that war (that also causes a recession) were what Nixon did starting 1968. The massacre of American soldiers for the greater glory of one leader.
Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined
What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?
According to
Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K
What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?
According to Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K
Civil, I, and II were not massacred, only Nixon massacred due to 85% of top management wanting VN war. Others were martyred.
What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad,
The president sent soldiers to death in a war that had already been lost. Even Le Duc Thou would share their secret military assessments with Kissinger (in Paris). And Kissenger would agree with them. So why were we massacring 33,000 Americans and almost one half million other people in a war that had was already lost. Nixon and Kissenger knew it was lost before massacring all those people uselessly.
He we surrendered and returned to the 1954 Geneva Convention, how many would not have been massacred? But Nixon's legacy would be harmed.
We had to burn the village to save it.
And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.
Can't we all agree that "war" is just good ole fun???
And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.
MassaCREE, tw. MasaCREE. with four part harmony.
Can't we all agree that "war" is just good ole fun???
No. There's a war on drugs. That's not fun. Or funny.;)
MassaCREE, tw. MasaCREE. with four part harmony.
Sorry. My spell checker keeps telling me how to think.
I don't know if this has been posted yet so...
[youtube]PbUz3pIPmTY[/youtube]
Don't ask the question if you don't already know what the answer will be.
Always hire the outside consultant that agrees with your proposal.
I don't know if this has been posted yet so...
Tom Rick's blog response:
Maybe I am getting cranky as I go into my third week of book tour. I was on Fox News yesterday morning and said (as I had indicated beforehand that I would) that the whole Benghazi story has been hyped. The anchor pushed back, so I defended my position. My view -- that Fox is openly supportive of the Republican Party, and that the Benghazi incident was hyped in part because it occurred near the end of the presidential campaign -- induced heart flutters in some quarters.
I was surprised that they cut me off instead of doing the manly thing and riding to the sound of the guns. Whattabunchawimps. It reminded me of something that Col. Nathan R. Jessup once said. Or, as a defense reporter commented to me yesterday, "The story is not about Benghazi, it's about how Fox can't tolerate criticism."
Some guy apparently claiming to be a spokesman for Fox misinformed the Hollywood Reporter that I apologized afterwards. Unfortunately the Hollywood Reporter didn't ask for specifics, or even ask me about it -- and I am not hard to find. (Dude, that's an automatic F in Journalism 101.)
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/27/ricks_mocks_fox_which_cuts_and_runsI wish he had said, "Whattabunchachimps." That would be a better word. He must had been livid leaving there. He's just trying to sell his damn book and can be expected to provide some insight into security questions, quid pro quo, but they needed to ask about a nonsense narrative.
